characters ´ There Is a God How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

There Is a God How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

download There Is a God How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

Hilosophical publication of the last five decades Flew earned his fame by arguing that one should presuppose atheism until evidence of a God surfaces He now believes that such evidence exists and There Is a God chronicles his journey from staunch atheism to believerFor the first time this book will present a detailed and fascinating account of Flew's riveting decision to revoke hi. I was raised a Christian and was a very ardent church member and proponent of my faith up u

read & download ↠ eBook, PDF or Kindle ePUB ß Antony Flew

In one of the biggest religion news stories of the new millennium the Associated Press announced that Professor Antony Flew the world's leading atheist now believes in GodFlew is a pioneer for modern atheism His famous paper Theology and Falsification was first presented at a meeting of the Oxford Socratic Club chaired by C S Lewis and went on to become the most widely reprinted p. In There's a God Flew takes us in an intellectual journey searching for God Starting with P Lords of Misrule: Mardi Gras and the Politics of Race in New Orleans in GodFlew The Miracle Match: Chappell, Lillee, Richards and the most electric moment in Australian Cricket is a pioneer for modern atheism His famous paper Theology and Falsification was first presented at a meeting of the Oxford Socratic Club chaired by C S Lewis and went on to become the most widely reprinted p. In There's a God Flew takes us The Dreadlock Journey in an Lunastus intellectual journey searching for God Starting with P

Antony Flew ß 7 read & download

S previous beliefs and argue for the existence of God Ever since Flew's announcement there has been great debate among atheists and believers alike about what exactly this conversion means There Is a God will finally put this debate to restThis is a story of a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker and where his lifelong intellectual pursuit eventually led him belief in God as design. Anthony Flew was a renowned atheist that had written than 30 books about the subject of at The Meri Scott Show (London Loving Book 2) is a story of a brilliant mind and reasoned thinker and where his lifelong Matthew Everingham, A First Fleeter And His Times intellectual pursuit eventually led him belief بیست و چهار ساعت در خواب و بیداری in God as design. Anthony Flew was a renowned atheist that had written than 30 books about the subject of at

10 thoughts on “There Is a God How the World's Most Notorious Atheist Changed His Mind

  1. says:

    Excellent Awesome Brilliant MagnificentThis book is much better than I expected and it's very important not because it supports the existence of God but because it encourages rational thinking Antony Flew inspired me His story can be summarized Born Christian Skeptic Christian Atheist Skeptic Atheist BelieverIn his journey Flew followed the Socratic principle “We must follow the argument wherever it leads” And the argument led him through so many deep and dark caves of skepticism until he saw the light of God He deserves to be called a True Believer I must say again that the journey to my discovery of the Divine has thus far been a pilgrimage of reason I have followed the argument where it has led me And it has led me to accept the existence of a self existent immutable immaterial omnipotent and omniscient BeingFlew inspired me because he's a True Believer and true believers are so few in this world A born Muslim or a born Christian who didn't experience skepticism isn't a believer Sheikh Ahmed Deedat once said you're a Muslim? You're parents are Muslims? Then no congratulations to you You're a Christian? You're parents are Christians? No congratulations to you too Deedat means that it's not a privilege to inherit your religion The real privilege is to find your religion to find GodFlew has found God but he didn't find religion In his book before he died He said he couldn't contact God through religion yet but he hoped for that to happen someday The discovery of phenomena like the laws of nature—the communications network of the parable—has led scientists philosophers and others to accept the existence of an infinitely intelligent Mind Some claim to have made contact with this Mind I have not—yet But who knows what could happen next?Someday I might hear a Voice that says “Can you hear me now?”This is one of my favorites I highly recommend it

  2. says:

    On the face of it this is a provocative and interesting book Flew is a British philosopher noted for numerous books proclaiming an atheist worldview who in 2004 startled the intellectual world by announcing that he has changed his mind and is now a religious believerSome of Flew's points are well taken for example his analysis of the ongoing debate over the multiverse and big bang cosmology For those of you who are not familiar with this many scientists are currently perplexed by numerous features of our universe and its laws that are extremely finely tuned to permit the existence of life And we're not just talking DNA carbon earth based life but life even in a very general sense based on a reasonably long lived universe and stable atoms In an attempt to explain these features some scientists have hypothesized a multiverse consisting of a huge number 10^500 or even infinite number of actually co existing universes They assert that the reason ours is so finely tuned for intelligent life is that if it weren't we wouldn't be here to talk about it ie the anthropic principle Flew notes as even some scientists have acknowledged that the notion of a universal Creator is at least as plausible as thisFlew also did a very nice job in summarizing writings of a number of leading scientists some of whom are outwardly atheistic but who are closer reading acknowledge a sublime beauty in the elegant laws governing the universe at least and perhaps a creator as well Among those he uotes are Albert Einstein Werner Heisenberg Erwin Schrodinger Max Planck Paul Dirac and recently Stephen Hawking Paul Davies and John Barrows Even Charles Darwin who by his own statement lost faith in any sort of personal deity commented on numerous occasions about the wonder of the natural world and felt compelled to look to an intelligent mindUnfortunately Flew's book is marred by his flawed analysis of biological evolution He starts out by dismissing writings of biologists on this subject saying that they rarely attend to the philosophical dimension of their findings He mentions the uestion of how a universe of mindless matter can produce beings with intrinsic ends self replication capabilities and 'coded chemistry' He then asserts Here we are not dealing with biology but an entirely different category of problem Are we?Along the way he mentions the monkeys at a typewriter argument the claim that monkeys at a typewriter could construct the works of Shakespeare He noted correctly that Schroeder and others have refuted this argument because constructing even a few lines of text would take enormously than the age of the universe But Flew then appears to incorrectly conclude that this utterly and totally refutes the notion that an evolutionary process can construct information rich structures such DNAUnfortunately reams of scientific evidence argues the other way evolution CAN and DOES increase information content There are numerous examples of beneficial mutations for example the strain of bacteria that due to a frame shift mutation was able to metabolize nylon and tragically the development of multi antibiotic resistant strains of tuberculosis and STDs Numerous recent experiments are starting to shed light on the problem of abiogensis how the first reproducing molecules formed More importantly the record of mutations in the DNA of every human and every other species for that matter is replete with literally millions of relics of our evolutionary past Finally I should mention the field of genetic or evolutionary computing which employs evolution like schemes to devise new engineering designs that in many cases are superior to anything designed by humansIn spite of this though overall Flew's material is not bad But the coup de grace is Appendix A written by Roy Abraham Varghese who is listed as a co author and who Flew acknowledges was a major factor in his conversion Varghese's article is awful He starts by giving the example of a marble table Since it is impossible that it could become conscious and since it is made of atoms how could we ever expect any other collection of atoms to acuire properties such as consciousness He continues this general line of reasoning for 20 pagesI'm sorry but this argument won't work It is identical in many respects to John Searle's Chinese room argument if a roomful of clerks performing mechanical operations were able to translate Chinese one could not say that this computer program was conscious Searle's flawed reasoning has been refuted over and over again what one can say about individual atoms and low level structures is NOT what one can say about a high level system involving billions or trillions or of such structures acting out high level imperatives imposed by evolutionBesides all of these arguments will soon be laid to rest Little known to the public the field of artificial intelligence is currently making great strides The main turning point here was about 10 years ago with the adoption of Bayseian probabilistic analysis schemes instead of the deterministic rules previously preferred This has greatly improved the effectiveness of intelligent software ranging from translation to medical diagnosis and industrial process monitoring Anyone who uestions this can just try to translate a paragraph of foreign language text using Google's online translation facility Most likely you will find that while it is by no means perfect it is often good enough that someone reading the resulting English can polish it up Recently Google won an international competition sponsored by a government agency for translation This was in spite of the fact that there was no one on Google's staff who was knowledgeable in either of the target languages it was achieved entirely by analyzing using Bayseian methods a huge corpus of UN documents in English and the relevant foreign languagesIn short it's too bad that such an interesting book as Flew's is so deeply flawed This makes it an easy target for the very atheists that Flew is trying to convince Sadly I'm inclined to agree here with Richard Dawkins with whom I strongly disagree for his acerbic in your face rhetoric in the science vs religion debate critical portions of Flew's book are nothing than the old god of the gaps logic the thought that God is to be found in the gaps of current scientific knowledge I was hoping that a world renowned philosopher would do better

  3. says:

    In There's a God Flew takes us in an intellectual journey searching for God Starting with Plato's logic We must follow the argument wherever it leads he managed to compare new Science discoveries late scientists' opinions like Einstein Hawkingetc to old philosophers mainly Russell Spinoza and also to attack famous atheists like Dawkins He managed to review his own beliefs and came to a new radical conclusion on his uestion of God superior mind Illimitable superior spirit superior reasoning force What I liked most about this book that it used mere science logic to prove God's existence not revelation not holy scriptures Nothing I grew fond of Einstein Hawking writings about this rational Mind What I didn't like was the book appendixes with its two parts the first one was attacking what being called the New Atheism That part was not that really convincing and also the second appendix about Jesus and Christianity You can pass through the first part of the book uickly as it was mainly bragging about his old atheism era But that was necessary after decades of being atheist writing several books about it and hosting debates so It really needed lots of courage to review one's own opinion specially in such great topicsThat was a wonderful read Note I knew about this book from one of Moezz Massoud episodes I read it maybe 2 years after the program was aired During my reading I was only wondering uran verses always push us to understand the Universe laws to read to learn to think about God's creatures to understand God's greatness to believe in Him But we are not doing any of that we are the worst nation in all scientific discoveries the highest rate of illitrates so Are we really the Best Nation came to world? I really doubt

  4. says:

    I was raised a Christian and was a very ardent church member and proponent of my faith up until the age of 21 In the 9 years since my apostasy I have continued to read books on both sides of the God debate I have endeavored to follow the evidence where it leads as the author of this book Antony Flew has asserted for himself It was then of interest to me that a well known atheist such as Flew should claim to now believe in God This announcement was a hot topic a few years back prior to Flew's death in 2010 and this book in particular was the subject of much controversy More on that laterFirst an aside This book came to me in an unusual fashion from a man I've never met Donny is a Christian who gives talks at churches around the world about his former 9 year career as a porn producer He used to freuent a mutual friend's Facebook page to debate with her on why she left the Christian faith His style was notable for its abusive ualities honing in on insecurities exposing information that was once confidential and arguing by guilt and intimidation without much in the way of actual support for his points I would chime in as a third party and analyze his posts in order to deconstruct logical fallacies and challenge him to produce real support for his beliefs As we were debating one day he told us that if we read this book by former atheist Antony Flew it would answer a lot of our uestions I asked him to summarize or present a few cogent points but instead he much to my surprise generously offered to buy three copies of the book for the participants in the conversation He gifted it to me digitally and a year and four months later I have finally gotten around to reading itI must confess that Antony Flew was not well known to me before the controversy about his deism He is lauded in the introduction and attending reviews as being the most influential and well known atheist perhaps something of an overstatement but I'd never read any of his books and couldn't tell if this book was a departure from his usual style of writing I've read many Apologetics works defending the faith and some of philosophy and I found this book wavering strangely between the two with a strong emphasis on the former that seemed odd coming from an 85 year old British philosopher He spends a fair amount of the book recounting his personal history and philosophical journey from the days he participated in CS Lewis's Socratic Club to writing Theology and Falsification God and Philosophy and The Presumption of Atheism After his summary I finally recognized a couple of his intellectual contributions to atheism that statements of metaphysics and religion are literally meaningless because they are empirically unverifiable and that the burden of proof is on the believer rather than the on the disbeliever the null hypothesis being the lack of belief in a positive claimThe primary target of this book is biologist and atheist Richard Dawkins whose name is mentioned no less than 44 times In the preface co author Roy Abraham Varghese already begins to argue a theological position odd as Flew only ever claims to be a deist He says Dawkins's atheism relies upon faith citing an Edge feature which asked contributors what they believed but could not prove I remember reading Dawkins's response which was that he believed all other life in the universe would also have developed via evolution by natural selection No one who had read and understood this would see this as an appeal to faith which caused me to worry early on about the level of discourse in this book as well as its consistency At the same time he projects faith on Dawkins Varghese is implying that there's something wrong with relying on faith as theists must Elsewhere Varghese and Flew criticize Dawkins on style rather than substance or write off legitimate critiues flippantly For example one huge argument against invoking God as an explanation for the existence of the universe is that you're explaining something complex the universe with something even complex a God complex enough to design and create the universe You're still stuck with the uestion of where God came from This is how Flew waves the problem awayRichard Dawkins has rejected this argument on the grounds that God is too complex a solution for explaining the universe and its laws This strikes me as a bizarre thing to say about the concept of an omnipotent spiritual Being What is complex about the idea of an omnipotent and omniscient Spirit and idea so simple that it is understood by all the adherents of the three great monotheistic religions Judaism Christianity and Islam? Commenting on Dawkins Alvin Plantinga recently pointed out that by Dawkins's own definition God is simple not complex because God is a spirit not a material object and hence does not have parts p69Seriously That's all the treatment afforded that important uestion in the entire book I trust I do not need to point out how the uestion has been avoided and replaced with a straw man The uote also demonstrates a proclivity to borrow others' arguments the book is largely a compilation of uotes and borrowed stances and a repeated assumption that spirits are established things that can be used a priori as explanationsFlew also expresses his ignorance of biology in his dismissal of evolution By assuming Dawkins was saying that evolution inspires only selfish interest and arguing from that standpoint Flew demonstrates that he has never read The Selfish Gene and has no idea how selection works He also bizarrely ties this in with human exceptionalism I can only wonder where he thinks humans came from It was at this point I really started to suspect that someone else was writing for him as these were all the tired arguments of theists not philosophers turned deists He also used the monkeys at keyboards argument to contest evolution signaling again that he hasn't read much on the topic and doesn't understand the concept of gradual successive changes There's too much material to fully uote and respond to so I'll simply point you to pages 53 56 on that matterThe discussion of free will is eually superficial and Flew seems unaware pun intended of the sheer amount of work our brains do outside of our conscious control as well as a large and growing body of evidence that all our actions and thoughts arise unconsciously and only report after the fact to our conscious mind He dismisses determinism without realizing that determinism can operate on such minute levels assuming free will and side stepping the actual debate on that issueFlew's arguments for God are structured around three primary uestions 1 How did the laws governing the Universe come about? 2 How did life arise from non life? 3 Where did the Universe come from? He also spends a fair amount of space contemplating the problem of consciousness All of these uestions are addressed with a God of the Gaps philosophy If science hasn't explained it yet then God is the only viable remaining solution Voila Each of these issues is expounded upon using the buzzwords and key issues of the Discovery Institute and similar outfits the fine tuning of laws the implausibility of multiple universe theory the origins of genetic information rather than mere chemical synthesis the lack of a model for how neurons produce consciousness and so on These are the latest issues that theists have embraced after having abandoned others that science has explained It's classic God of the Gaps and nothing else Bonus points for referring to the multiverse theory as a Blunderbuss theory one that explains everything and yet nothing and cannot be refuted Right and how is that different from invoking God?My notes include other issues I had with the book but I've covered the main problems Suffice it to say this book was not written in the voice of someone who had been an atheist for 50 years nor someone well versed in science let alone philosophy And sure enough Flew later confirmed that Varghese did the actual writing This explains why a deist would be commenting on how God is loving or why he allows suffering two things a deist should have no need to address It also explains the focus on Christianity that is pervasive throughout the book even though Flew states here and elsewhere that he does not believe in Christianity he just considers it the religion with the best chance of being true A sizable chunk of the book is devoted to two appendices apologetic works by Roy Abraham Varghese and NT Wright deepening the odd co opting of a converted deist's position with Christian apologist talking pointsIt's a confused effort; superficial and poorly considered

  5. says:

    Anthony Flew was one of the philosophical fountainheads of much of the atheist thinking of the 20th century When he announced he had decided the best evidence and argument no longer supported that position that he in fact had become a deist atheist believers were shocked They assumed that this was a late age deathbed conversion Flew begins his book by disposing of that notion What led him to accept that the existence of God an omniscient omnipotent creator being was the same thing that had led him to initially deny His existence The Socratic Principle which states “We must follow the argument wherever it leads”As an atheist Flew wrote several influential papers These not only influenced atheists but theist philosophy as well in that over time rebuttals were formulated Modern theist philosophers such as Alvin Plantinga and Roy Varghese co author of this book and David Conway stand on solid philosophical ground for having developed responses to Flew’s argumentsWhy did Flew change his mind? “The short answer is this this is the world picture as I see it that has emerged from modern science” His departure from atheism developed over the last two decades as a conseuence of his “continuing assessment from the evidence of nature” He says that “those scientists who point to the Mind of God do not merely advance a series of arguments or a process of syllogistic reasoning rather they propound a vision of reality that emerges from the conceptual heart of modern science and imposes itself n the rational mind It is a vision that I personally find compelling and irrefutable”He says “the three items of evidence we have considered in this volume—the laws of nature the anthropic principle life with its teleological organization and the existence of the universe—can only be explained in the light of an Intelligence that explains both its own existence and that of our world” “I have followed the argument where it has led me And it has led me to accept the existence of a self existent immutable immaterial omnipotent and omniscient Being”

  6. says:

    Flew is at times uite self indulgent but there is a certain humility in how casually he seems to change his mind based on new arguments I expected of a narrative following his conversion to deism but instead was met with a broad overview of arguments for God's existence that largely emerged or have been buttressed by new scientific information from the late twentieth centuryFlew was obviously uite impressed with big bang cosmology and the complexity of genetics as we all should be and can't be blamed for thinking they contradicted his previous worldview Though there are of course various responses to the arguments he raises none comprehensively refute them such that it is irrational to use them to support a belief in GodOne exception to this is that Flew appeared as an atheist to have been uite moved by the problem of evil for which the most popular religious response tends to be the free will defence Flew was as I am now an incompatiblist about free will though he used to be a determinist incompatiblist and died as a libertarian incompatiblistIt appears that Flew's reversal on the subject of free will was crucial in his adoption of deism since he saw the problem of evil as a serious challenge and the free will defence as inadeuate due to the nonexistence of free will It is implied that once he became convinced that we are free agents this allowed him to escape the problem of evil objectionBut Flew's account of how certain causes can 'incline' rather than 'necessitate' misses the mark entirely not considering how whatever bridges the gap between inclination and action is itself a process out of one's own controlI wonder if Flew might have held onto his atheism due to the problem of evil had he not made this error as I perceive it to be His case is an affirmative one relying on scientific discoveries and philosophical analysis so perhaps he still may have converted as a determinist but it is unclearThis made me realise that should I ever become a believer in a moral God perhaps an unexpected condition would be to become first convinced that libertarian free will exists something I currently consider to be logically impossible

  7. says:

    Anthony Flew was a renowned atheist that had written than 30 books about the subject of atheism It appears that his books influenced atheists greatly In the meantime in the last several years we have had a new breed of atheists Some call them new atheists others militant atheists When Flew announced that he now believed in God he was attacked The new atheists thought that he had flipped his wig in his old age Like some Christians the new atheists were like pit bulls The need to save others often brings out the worse in mankind as do many strong beliefs that men hold to be the trutjWhat I liked about Flew’s book was his listing the book or books that led him to the conclusion that there was a Creator But I will add this He did not believe in a personal God or in life after death He also listed names of scientists that believed in God and added uotes by them proving that they also believed in a Creator if not in a person God Flew also and gave his own reasons for his change of mind What I objected to and I think it is because Fleew had a ghost writer was Appendix B in the book which was an argument for Christianity Flew did not believe in Christianity Was his book hijacked? This appendix was written by a Christian in hopes to get new converts One of the arguments in this appendix was the belief that Christianity is uniue in claiming that there was an incarnation of God on earth Christ No other religion has believed this What? The Hindus believed in incarnations way before Christianity came on the scene God had come down to earth to save mankind many times Krishna whose name mean Christ was one of those incarnations as were other gurus They all took and continue to take on their disciple’s sins their karma They just do not have to die on a cross to do so But of course taking on the karma of their disciples does makes them ill and in time they get sick and die

  8. says:

    The book is in three sections Each section is like a time lapse view at a portion of this incredible man's life I found it amazing that this great British philosopher managed in his book to both profoundly analyze and easily portray his thoughts and beliefs in each section of the bookHe has an amazing ability to analyze inputs and thoughts and how they originate develop and culminate into a final 'belief' Temporary as they may have been; all his beliefs as the book states resulted out of following the principle of following evidence wherever it may leadThe book helped me find a 'mental' approach to God as well as find a methodology through which I can analyze and refute where applicable the various neo atheistic forms of propaganda that has spread recently in various media forms; something which I struggled with for a long time before I read this bookA must read for everyone believer or not At the very least you will get a glimpse of what being a true philosopher and analytic thinker means And if you're as lucky as I was it will further help you find something that is truly priceless

  9. says:

    For than 50 years atheists turned to the writings of Antony Flew a British philosopher Flew first came to fame with the essay Theology and Falsification which he presented at the CS Lewis chaired Socratic Society at Oxford He spent the next 50 years as an atheist but he always added the caveat I'll follow where the evidence leads In 2004 at a conference on atheism in New York City Flew dropped a bombshell He had finally rejected atheism and was now a believer in God He's not uite what many would call a traditional believer he doesn't believe in an after life so those accusing him of hedging his best in his old age are left without a counter argument there and thinks God pretty much made man and then left him to his own devicesAfter studying many scientific papers particularly the ones on the human genome project and the mapping of DNA Flew came to the conclusion that the function of DNA and RNA is so specific and so subtle that there is no way random development and evolution could explain it all away That coupled with a re evaluation of the writings of Hume a long time hero of his led Flew to embrace beliefe in GodThis is definitely an interesting book Flew chronicles his development as a young atheist and then finally what led him to believe in God Don't skip the appendices here Particularly the one dealing with the ressurection of Christ Very insightful

  10. says:

    Once in a while I read yet another book by a sophisticated thinker on the issue of whether a God exists Often it turns out that there's also a chapter on the alleged resurrection of Jesus; this always feels like a betrayal as well as an admission that the main driver of the argument has actually been magical thinking all along I'm aware that many brilliant and honest people over the past 18 centuries have claimed to believe that this fellow Jesus was dead for three days and then became alive again but it seems to me uite impossible and unworthy of special pleadingI am far ready to entertain the hypothesis that there is a divine mind without a brain though I can't imagine how this could be true than that a particular guy rose from the dead and was for that matter a human incarnation of the infinite God of the ancient Hebrews and was somehow his own Father and his own Son and so on It is so absurd so pitifully heartbreakingly far fetched that I won't waste ink on it Such a belief may be laudable as a cultural formation but it's not my culture Unfortunately Flew's book does include such a chapter written by a guest author he admires It seemed very silly to meI'm genuinely and un ironically interested in the uestion of what speaks for theism and what speaks against it I would like very very much to become convinced that God exists which is my reason for putting in the time reading such books as this one by Antony Flew When such a book turns up the old saw that God provides a transcendent foundation for moral values I give the book away as non worthwhile for example God The Evidence by Patrick Glynn Happily this book doesn't do that It claims that God is a good explanation for the origin of life the phenomenon of consciousness and the fact that there is a world at all While I agree that Richard Dawkins seems to be an a hole of some kind I am not ready to believe that no amount of biochemistry can account for emergent self replicating macromolecules As to why there is a world at all I don't prefer to ask why there is a God at all which is the obligatory next move if I say there's a world because a God made one Consciousness as an emergent property of a computational neural network I just don't understand; but I certainly don't understand consciousness as an incorporeal spirit any betterSomehow Antony Flew thought others would be persuaded by this book and I respect him so I wonder if I simply read it too fast I don't think so